Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1887-08-24

Editor Republican, Watertoaon, Wis:
Permit me to ask you to kindly insert
the enclosed account OF our important
meeting l am, Yours Faithfully,
F. PETRIE, Fl. Sec.
The President delivered his address.
He said that he proposed to address few
words to them bearing upon the object of
the institute, and upon the spirit in which,
as he conceived, that object was to be car
ried out. The highest aim of physical
science was, as far as might be possible,
to refer observed phenomena to their
proximate causes. He by no means said
that this was the immediate, or even
necessarily the ultimate, object of every
physical investigation. Sometimes their
object was to Investigate facts, or to CO.
ordinate known facts and endeavOr to
discover empirical laws. These were use
full as far as they went, and might
ultimately lead to the formation of theor
les which, in the end, should stand the
test of what be might call cross-examina-
ton by nature that we became impressed
with the conviction of their truth.
Sometimes their object was the determina-
ton of numerical constants, with view,
it might be, to the practical application
of science to the wants of life. In scien-
tifc investigation they endeavored to
ascend from observed phenomena to their
proximate causes. But, when they had
arrived at these, the question presented
itself, could we, in similar manner, re-
gard these causes, in turn, as themselves
the consequences of some cause stretching
still further back in the chain of causa-
ton till time we'll on in the past? We
could only take the elasticity of gases as
a fact, and deduce the consequence which
flowed from it. Respecting the attraction
of gravitation, we had not at present
made a similar advance. Speculations,
indeed, had not been wanting OF the part
of those who had endeavoured to account
for it. But none of these so fitted into
the known phenomena of nature as to
carry with it conviction of its truth
Yet there was one indication that though
we could not at present explain the
cause Of gravitation, yet it might be ex-
plicable by what were called second
causes and there was some prospect of
scientific men being able some day to ex-
plain it as the result of some still higher
law Such was the nature of our progress
in scientific investigation. Science con-
Quoted US to void which she could not
further fill. 1t was on other grounds
that we were led to believe in a Being
who was the Author of Nature The
subject-matter of scientific study was not
at least directly theistic, and there had
been few instances of eminent scientists
who not merely rejected Christianity but
apparently did not as yet believe in the
being of God. The religious man, on
the other hand, who knew little or moth
ing of science, was in the habit of con-
templatlng the order of nature, not mere
Iy as the work of God, but in very great
measure as His direct work But when
we get beyond the region of what was
Familiarity known, still more when we got
outside the limits of wel-ascertained
scientific conclusions, and entered at
still debatable ground, when men of sci
ence were attempting to push forward,
and were framing hypothesis with a view
to the ultimate establishment of theory
In case those hypothesis should stand
the test of thorough examination, a man
such as he had supposed might feel as
if the scientists, who were attempting 10
explore it were treading on holy ground;
and he might mentally charge them with
irreverence, perhaps he might openly
speak of them In a manner which implied
that he attributed to them an intention
ofopposing revealed religion. The primary
object of the establishment of the institute
was to examine questions as to which
there was a primG facie appearance of
conflict between the conclusions. fscience
and the teachings of religion. Scientific
investigation was eminently truthful.
The investigator might be wrong, bnt it
did not follow that he was other than
truth-loving. If on some subjects which
we deemed of the highest Importance he
did not agree with US, let US, remembering
our own imperfections botk of under
standing and of practice, bear in mind
that caution of the apostle, "Who art
thou that judgest another mans servant?
To bis own master he standeth or falleth."
The following remarks may also be
quoted here:-The institute fully recog-
nized that between Science, rightly I'M
derstood, and Revelation, rightly under
stood, there was no opposition: if an
apparent discrepancy should arise, we
had no right, on principle, to exclude
either in favor ofthe other, for however
firmly convinced we might be ofthe truth
of Revelation, we must admit our liability
to err as to the extent or Interpretation
of what is revealed; and however strong
the scientific evidence in favor of a
theory might be, we must admit that we
are dealing with evidence which in its
nature is probable only, and it is con-
ceivable that wider scientific knowledge
might lead us to alter our opinion. Again,
it was impossible for the bulk of our
populations to weigh the evidence ofwhat
he stated to be the conclusions of science,
they take them on trust; and if scientific
coniectures are represented to them as
the conclusions of science they are pre-
disposed, knowing what science had done,
to accept them as true. 1t is quite pos
sible a stumblingblock might thus be
placed in the way of religious belief, for
though the fundamental idea of the unity
of truth involved, as an axiom, the alb
sence of antagouism between true science